DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 12/17/2025 has been entered. Amended Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 10, 13-14 and 16 have been noted in addition to canceled Claims 2, 4 and 9. The amendment has overcome the claim objections and 112(b) rejections previously set forth - those claim objections and 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn accordingly. Claims 1, 3, 5-8 and 10-17 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
2. Claims 1, 3, 5-8 and 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 now recites the limitation “such that the membrane has an improved thermal inertia and thermal insulation capabilities while maintaining high gas permeability” which constitutes new matter. The recitation of “maintaining high gas permeability” as claimed is not disclosed in the original disclosure. While there is discussion of a “low permeability” compared to a relatively “higher permeability” (“first localized areas 26 with low permeability alternating with the second localized areas 27 with higher permeability than the first localized areas 26”), there is no disclosure of “high gas permeability” alone and of “maintaining” the same as is now claimed. Therefore, this new limitation constitutes new matter.
Claims 3, 5-8 and 10-17 are rejected due to their dependency on Claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5-8 and 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 now recites the limitation “such that the membrane has an improved thermal inertia and thermal insulation capabilities while maintaining high gas permeability” which is considered indefinite. It is not clear what constitutes “improved thermal inertia and thermal insulation capabilities while maintaining high gas permeability” in the context claimed because it is unclear which “capabilities” are being referred to (since more than one are possible), how those “capabilities” impact the structure of the claimed apparatus and what level of “thermal inertia and thermal insulation capabilities” are required by the claim. Furthermore, the term "high gas permeability" in the recitation “while maintaining high gas permeability” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high gas permeability” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. While there is discussion of a “low permeability” compared to a relatively “higher permeability” (“first localized areas 26 with low permeability alternating with the second localized areas 27 with higher permeability than the first localized areas 26”), there is no disclosure of “high gas permeability” alone and of “maintaining” the same as is now claimed. It is unclear what magnitude of gas permeability constitutes “high gas permeability” and how much gas permeability a prior art apparatus would need to have to meet this limitation as claimed. The metes and bounds of Claim 1 are consequently unclear.
Claims 3, 5-8 and 10-17 are rejected due to their dependency on Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10-13, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sighinolfi et al. (US 2022/0170631 A1) (hereinafter “Sighinolfi”) in view of Suk (EP 2,292,817 A1) (see attached original document for reference).
Regarding Claim 1, to the extent that Claim 1 is understood in light of the 112(b) rejection set forth in this Office Action, Sighinolfi teaches of a combustion membrane (14) for a gas burner (2) (see at least [0056] and Figs. 1-3, 12), said combustion membrane having an inner side (23) to which a combustible gas (13) is conveyed and an outer side (17) on which combustion of the combustible gas occurs after the combustible gas has crossed the combustion membrane (see at least Abstract, [0062] and Figs. 1-3, 12), said combustion membrane comprising a fabric or mesh (element (24) which may be “fabric” or “mesh”) (see at least [0063]-[0068] and Figs. 1-3, 12), having two opposite interlacing surfaces (the upper and lower surfaces of element (24) with respect to Fig. 12) forming a combustion surface exposed on the outer side (side of (17)) and an inner surface facing the inner side (side or (23)), respectively (see at least [0056], [0063]-[0068] and Figs. 1-3, 12).
Sighinolfi fails to explicitly teach that the fabric or mesh of the combustion membrane comprises interlaced metal wires wherein the metal wires are formed by continuous metal fibers which form a yarn with mass per length ranging from 0.8 g/m to 1.4 g/m, wherein said continuous metal fibers are not mutually twisted and have a waviness that gives further extension to the yarn in a transverse direction, wherein the fabric or mesh has a mass per area either equal to or greater than 1.2 kg/m2 or more, such that the membrane has an improved thermal inertia and thermal insulation capabilities while maintaining high gas permeability.
Suk discloses a relatable combustion membrane (“membrane” shown in Figs. 14-15 that is applied to the shown “surface combustion burner”) (see at least Abstract, [0037]-[0039] and Figs. 1-2, 9-10 and 15-15) that comprises a fabric or mesh (the fabric or mesh shown in Figs. 9-10) formed out of “metal fiber yarn” that is formed from continuous metal fibers (“metal fibers”) (see at least Abstract, [0020], [0029]-[0031], [0037]-[0039] and Figs. 1-2, 9-10, 15-15). Suk teaches that the combustion membrane comprises interlaced metal wires (the interlaced wires that make up the yarn as are shown in at least Figs. 2C and 8) wherein the metal wires are formed by the continuous metal fibers (“metal fibers”) which form the yarn (“metal fiber yarn” as shown in Figs. 2C and 8), wherein the yarn has a mass per length ranging from 0.8 g/m to 1.4 g/m (Note that Suk teaches that the Yarn may be “0.45 m to 10.0m per gram” (which is equivalent to 0.1 g/m to 2.22 g/m) (see Abstract) and discloses a specific example wherein the yarn may be “1.1 m per gram” (which is equivalent to 0.91 g/m) which falls directly within the claimed range (see at least Abstract and [0091]). Suk accordingly teaches that the yarn may have a mass per unit length within the claimed range.). Furthermore, Suk teaches that said continuous metal fibers are not mutually twisted (via “false twist yarn” wherein “the false twist yarn is prepared by drawing and twisting the metal fibers to manufacture the metal fiber yarn and untwisting the metal fiber yarn” wherein the result is untwisted yarn - see at least [0060]-[0061] and Fig. 2C) and have a waviness that gives further extension to the yarn in a transverse direction (via the “concave-convex patterns illustrated in FIGS. 2B and 2C”) (see at least [0048] and Figs. 2B-2C), wherein the fabric or mesh has a mass per area either equal to or greater than 1.2 kg/m2 or more (Suk teaches that the fabric or mesh can have a range of weight per area including “4.0 kg/m2” which falls within the claimed range of (at least) “equal to or greater than 1.2 kg/m2” as claimed) (see at least [0073] and Figs. 9-10), such that the membrane has an improved thermal inertia and thermal insulation capabilities relative to at least a membrane that is not configured in the same way (The membrane has improved thermal inertia and thermal insulation capabilities such as “a wide combustion characteristic” that is “exhibited throughout the high-load and low-load areas, and a more excellent heating effect is exhibited by the uniform flame distribution and the flame splitting effect” such that “improved differential pressure performance (reduced differential pressure) is exhibited” (see at least [0080] and Fig. 2C), all while maintaining a relatively high gas permeability (as is evident from at least the disclosure that the membrane “has an advantage in that super low load combustion is possible” which requires relatively high gas permeability and of “regular and fine pores” (which is more permeable than a configuration with only fine pores) - see at least [0073], [0080] and Fig. 2C.). Suk teaches that such a combustion membrane made out of metal fiber yarn of this type is advantageous because, inter alia, “frictional force between metal fibers, entanglement and processability are improved” (see at least Abstract).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the combustion membrane taught by Sighinolfi by configuring the existing fabric or mesh of the combustion membrane to comprise interlaced metal wires wherein the metal wires are formed by continuous metal fibers which form a yarn with mass per length of 0.91 g/m (which falls within the claimed range of “from 0.8 g/m to 1.4 g/m”) as is taught by Suk and to have made said continuous metal fibers not mutually twisted wherein the fibers have a waviness that gives further extension to the yarn in a transverse direction, wherein the fabric or mesh has a mass per area either equal to or greater than 1.2 kg/m2 or more, such that the membrane would have improved thermal inertia and thermal insulation capabilities while maintaining high gas permeability as is also taught by Suk. Doing so would have, inter alia, improved frictional force between metal fibers, entanglement and processability. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 3, Suk also teaches that the individual continuous metal fibers each have a length substantially corresponding to the length of the yarn formed therewith (as is shown in at least Fig. 2C) (see at least [0048] and Fig. 2C).
Regarding Claim 5, Suk also teaches that said waviness (the waviness of the continuous metal fibers shown as the “concave-convex patterns illustrated in FIGS. 2B and 2C”) (see at least [0048] and Figs. 2B-2C) is a waviness with less wavelength and amplitude than the wavelength and amplitude of a knitting or weaving waviness of the fabric or mesh (The fabric or mesh, which is knitted or weaved as shown in at least Figs. 9-10, comprises multiple overlapping yarn structures as shown in Fig. 2 - thus, the wavelength and amplitude of the knitting or weaving waviness of the fabric or mesh is necessarily greater than that of a single yarn of the continuous metal fibers by virtue of the fabric or mesh comprising a plurality of overlapping yarn structures.) (see at least [0030]-[0031] and Figs. 2, 9-10). Thus, the combination of Sighinolfi and Suk necessarily meets this limitation as claimed.
Regarding Claim 6, Suk also teaches that said waviness is formed over the entire length of the yarn (see at least Abstract which discloses “a method for preparing a fabric, including forming concave-convex patterns in a metal fiber at intervals of 0.3-50mm in a longitudinal direction of the metal fiber, forming a metal fiber yarn having a length of 0.45-10.0mm per gram by using the metal fiber in which the concave-convex patterns are formed, and weaving the metal fiber yarn into a fabric” - thus, the waviness, which is formed by the “concave-convex patterns”, is necessarily disposed over the entire length of the yarn at the specified intervals).
Regarding Claim 7, Suk also teaches that the continuous metal fibers of a same yarn are detached from one another, at least in stretches, along more than 30%, or more than 50%, of the length of the yarn, thus making the yarn bulged (as is shown in at least Fig. 2C) (Suk teaches that “the yarn, including any number of metal fibers such as an example, about 10-250 strands or more of metal fiber, may be easily prepared. Furthermore, the metal fiber yarn may be prepared without using an additional binder and/or polymer” - thus Suk teaches that the continuous metal fibers of a same yarn are detached from one another along the entire length of yarn (via the absence of a “binder” that would otherwise bind the fibers together) which necessarily constitutes “at least in stretches, along more than 30%, or more than 50%, of the length of the yarn” as claimed) (see at least [0054] and Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 8, Suk also teaches that the continuous metal fibers have a circular cross-section (as is shown in at least Figs. 2, 5-6 and 8) (see at least Abstract, [0025] and Figs. 2, 5-6, 8).
Regarding Claim 10, Suk also teaches that:
the continuous metal fibers each have a length substantially corresponding to the length of the yarn formed therewith (as is shown in at least Fig. 2C) (see at least [0048] and Fig. 2C),
the waviness of the continuous metal fibers is a waviness with less wavelength and less amplitude than a wavelength and amplitude of a knitting or weaving waviness of the fabric or mesh (The fabric or mesh, which is knitted or weaved as shown in at least Figs. 9-10, comprises multiple overlapping yarn structures as shown in Fig. 2 - thus, the wavelength and amplitude of the knitting or weaving waviness of the fabric or mesh is necessarily greater than that of a single yarn of the continuous metal fibers by virtue of the fabric or mesh comprising a plurality of overlapping yarn structures.) (see at least [0030]-[0031] and Figs. 2, 9-10),
said waviness is formed over the entire length of the yarn (see at least Abstract which discloses “a method for preparing a fabric, including forming concave-convex patterns in a metal fiber at intervals of 0.3-50mm in a longitudinal direction of the metal fiber, forming a metal fiber yarn having a length of 0.45-10.0mm per gram by using the metal fiber in which the concave-convex patterns are formed, and weaving the metal fiber yarn into a fabric” - thus, the waviness, which is formed by the “concave-convex patterns” is necessarily disposed over the entire length of the yarn at the specified intervals), and
the continuous metal fibers have a circular cross-section (as is shown in at least Figs. 2, 5-6 and 8) (see at least Abstract, [0025] and Figs. 2, 5-6, 8).
Regarding Claim 11, Suk also teaches that the metal wires consist of continuous metal fibers having a diameter ranging from 30 micrometers to 50 micrometers (“30 µm” which falls within the claimed range) (see at least [0027] and Fig. 7A).
Regarding Claim 13, Sighinolfi and Suk teach the combustion membrane of Claim 1 (see the rejection for Claim 1) and Suk also teaches that both interlacing surfaces form high-relief ribs (upwards protruding ribs formed at the top of two stacked superimposed yarn pieces as shown in Figs. 9-12) alternating with low-relief valleys (downwards protruding valleys formed at the bottom of two stacked superimposed yarn pieces as shown in Figs. 9-12) (see at least [0030]-[0035] and Figs. 2, 9-12), and that both the high-relief ribs and the low-relief valleys have an extension (the relative extensions that deviate from the mid line of the fabric or mesh of the combustion membrane), in at least one direction in a plane of the fabric or mesh (the up/down directions respectively) (see at least [0030]-[0035] and Figs. 2, 9-12), greater than a thickness of the metal wires (by virtue of the yarn pieces, which are formed from multiple metal wires, being stacked/overlapped) (see at least [0030]-[0035] and Figs. 2, 9-12), thereby forming a thickness of the fabric or mesh not completely filled with metal material (via at least the plurality of “pores” - see at least [0080] and Figs. 2C, 11), which allows gas distribution within the plane of the fabric or mesh itself to prevent localized overheating (as is evident from “uniform flame distribution” and the absence of overheating) (see at least [0080] and Figs. 2C, 11).
Sighinolfi and Suk fail to explicitly teach that the respective extensions are “three times greater than a thickness of the metal wires”. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have simply configured the existing respective extensions to be three times greater than a thickness of the metal wires as claimed since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
(“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); See also In re Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”).
In the instant case, Suk, in the combined apparatus, teaches that both interlacing surfaces form high-relief ribs (upwards protruding ribs formed at the top of two stacked superimposed yarn pieces as shown in Figs. 9-12) alternating with low-relief valleys (downwards protruding valleys formed at the bottom of two stacked superimposed yarn pieces as shown in Figs. 9-12) (see at least [0030]-[0035] and Figs. 2, 9-12), and that both the high-relief ribs and the low-relief valleys have an extension (the relative extensions that deviate from the mid line of the fabric or mesh of the combustion membrane), in at least one direction in a plane of the fabric or mesh (the up/down directions respectively) (see at least [0030]-[0035] and Figs. 2, 9-12), greater than a thickness of the metal wires (by virtue of the yarn pieces, which are formed from multiple metal wires, being stacked/overlapped) (see at least [0030]-[0035] and Figs. 2, 9-12) - thus the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art. The magnitude of the extensions relative to the thickness of the metal wires is a result effective variable that would have been readily changeable in the combined apparatus. Suk discloses that “there is no special limitation on the number of metal fibers included in the metal fiber bundle which is to be passed through the gear to form the concave-convex patterns thereon” and that “The number of metal fibers used for forming a single strand of the yarn is not limited. Specifically, the yarn, including any number of metal fibers” (see at least [0053] and Fig. 2). Moreover, a higher number of fibers will increase the thickness of the fabric or mesh formed with the fibers and in turn the relative density of the fabric or mesh (see at least [0073] and Figs. 9-12). Thus, the magnitude of the extensions relative to the thickness of the metal wires is a result effective variable that is dependent upon the desired density of the fabric or mesh and the corresponding number of wires used to achieve that density - using more wires will result in a relatively higher density and a relatively smaller magnitude of the extensions relative to the thickness of the metal wires and vice-versa (see at least [0053], [0073] and Figs. 2, 9-12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have simply adjusted the existing number of wires, depending on density of the fabric or mesh desired, such that the respective extensions would be three times greater than a thickness of the metal wires as claimed since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 14, Sighinolfi and Suk teach the combustion membrane of Claim 1 (see the rejection for Claim 1) and Suk also teaches that the fabric or mesh has first localized areas with low permeability (the localized areas of the mesh wherein yarn pieces do overlap as shown in Figs. 9-12 which have lower permeability by virtue of overlapping material), alternating with second localized areas with higher permeability than the first localized areas (the localized areas of the mesh wherein yarn pieces do not overlap as shown in Figs. 9-12 that consequently have relatively higher permeability), and wherein both the first and second localized areas have an extension (the relative extensions that deviate from the mid line of the fabric or mesh of the combustion membrane), in at least one direction in a plane of the fabric or mesh (in at least the up and/or down direction by virtue of the yarn pieces, which are formed from multiple metal wires, being stacked/overlapped or inclining away from the mid line before overlapping) (see at least [0030]-[0035] and Figs. 2, 9-12), thereby providing a uniform flow velocity distribution of the gas across the combustion membrane to reduce the risk of flame detachments (via at least the “uniform flame distribution” and “improved differential pressure performance” of the membrane - see at least [0080] and Figs. 2, 9-12).
Sighinolfi and Suk fail to explicitly teach that the respective extensions are “three times greater than a thickness of the metal wires”. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have simply configured the existing respective extensions to be three times greater than a thickness of the metal wires as claimed since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
(“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); See also In re Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”).
In the instant case, Suk, in the combined apparatus, teaches that the fabric or mesh has first localized areas with low permeability (the localized areas of the mesh wherein yarn pieces do overlap as shown in Figs. 9-12 which have lower permeability by virtue of overlapping material), alternating with second localized areas with higher permeability than the first localized areas (the localized areas of the mesh wherein yarn pieces do not overlap as shown in Figs. 9-12 that consequently have relatively higher permeability), and wherein both the first and second localized areas have an extension (the relative extensions that deviate from the mid line of the fabric or mesh of the combustion membrane), in at least one direction in a plane of the fabric or mesh (in at least the up and/or down direction by virtue of the yarn pieces, which are formed from multiple metal wires, being stacked/overlapped or inclining away from the mid line before overlapping) (see at least [0030]-[0035] and Figs. 2, 9-12) - thus the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art. The magnitude of the extensions relative to the thickness of the metal wires is a result effective variable that would have been readily changeable in the combined apparatus. Suk discloses that “there is no special limitation on the number of metal fibers included in the metal fiber bundle which is to be passed through the gear to form the concave-convex patterns thereon” and that “The number of metal fibers used for forming a single strand of the yarn is not limited. Specifically, the yarn, including any number of metal fibers” (see at least [0053] and Fig. 2). Moreover, a higher number of fibers will increase the thickness of the fabric or mesh formed with the fibers and in turn the relative density of the fabric or mesh (see at least [0073] and Figs. 9-12). Thus, the magnitude of the extensions relative to the thickness of the metal wires is a result effective variable that is dependent upon the desired density of the fabric or mesh and the corresponding number of wires used to achieve that density - using more wires will result in a relatively higher density and a relatively smaller magnitude of the extensions relative to the thickness of the metal wires and vice-versa (see at least [0053], [0073] and Figs. 2, 9-12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have simply adjusted the existing number of wires, depending on density of the fabric or mesh desired, such that the respective extensions would be three times greater than a thickness of the metal wires as claimed since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 15, Sighinolfi also teaches that the fabric or mesh (element (24) which may be “fabric” or “mesh”) (see at least [0063]-[0068] and Figs. 1-3, 12) is supported by and in contact with a support layer (26) arranged on the inner side of the combustion membrane (see at least Abstract and Figs. 1-3 and 12).
Regarding Claim 17, Sighinolfi and Suk teach the combustion membrane according to Claim 1 (see the rejection for Claim 1) wherein the combustion membrane would be disposed within the existing gas burner (2) taught by Sighinolfi (see at least [0049], Figs. 1-3 of Sighinolfi and the rejection for Claim 1 above). Thus, the combination of Sighinolfi and Suk would have necessarily resulted in a “gas burner comprising a combustion membrane according to claim 1” as claimed.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sighinolfi and Suk further in view of Tversoki et al. (US 2008/0230522 A1) (hereinafter “Tversoki”).
Regarding Claim 12, Sighinolfi and Suk teach the combustion membrane of Claim 1 (see the rejection for Claim 1) and Suk also teaches that the metal wires are made of an FeCrAI alloy (“Fe-Cr-Al alloy”) doped with Yttrium (“yttrium”) and Zirconium (“Zirconium”) (see at least [0050]).
Sighinolfi and Suk fail to explicitly teach that the existing doping material also includes Hafnium.
Tversoki discloses a relatable burner apparatus (Fig. 1) that comprises an insert element (43) exposed to the high heat of the flame (see at least [0042] and Fig. 1). Tversoki teaches that the insert element is made of a plurality of materials including hafnium (“hafnium”) and that using hafnium is advantageous because it is not only heat resistant but also “a heat-emissive material” (see at least [0042] and Fig. 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified the combined apparatus by configuring the existing doping material of the existing metal wires to also include hafnium based on the teachings of Tversoki. Doing so would have, at least, enhanced the heat-emissive ability of the existing metal wires. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sighinolfi and Suk further in view of Dewaegheneire (WO 0179759 A1) (see attached original document for reference).
Regarding Claim 16, Sighinolfi and Suk teach the combustion membrane of Claim 1 (see the rejection for Claim 1) but fail to explicitly teach that the metal wires are at least or only initially bound during manufacturing of the yarn and/or processing of the fabric or mesh by a binder selected from a bonding thread, a bonding adhesive, and a water-soluble binder.
Dewaegheneire discloses a relatable combustion membrane (Fig. 3) and method for making the same wherein metal wires are initially bound by a binder in the form of (at least) a bonding thread (“polymer or natural fibers and binding agent”) during manufacturing and before use (“removed after the textile transformation process”) such that, inter alia, “higher speed during weaving or knitting can be applied” (see at least pg. 4 line 21 - pg. 5 line 10 and Figs. 1-4).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified the combined apparatus by configuring the existing metal wires to be at least or only initially bound by a binder in the form of a bonding thread during manufacturing and before use as is taught by Dewaegheneire. Doing so would have enabled higher speed during weaving or knitting to be applied during manufacturing. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed 12/17/2025 have been fully considered but have not been found persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant has argued that amended Claim 1 is now distinguished from the previously relied upon prior art combination of Sighinolfi and Suk and contends that:
“Claim 1 is amended herein and recites, in part, "A combustion membrane... comprising a
fabric or mesh of interlaced metal wires, having two opposite interlacing surfaces forming a combustion surface exposed on the outer side and an inner surface facing the inner side, respectively, wherein the metal wires are formed by continuous metal fibers which form a yarn with mass per length ranging from 0.8 g/m to 1.4 g/m, wherein said continuous metal fibers are not mutually twisted and have a waviness that gives further extension to the yarn in a transverse direction, wherein the fabric or mesh has a mass per area either equal to or greater than 1.2 kg/m2 or more, such that the membrane has an improved thermal inertia and thermal insulation capabilities while maintaining high gas permeability" (emphasis added).
Applicant respectfully submits that, although Suk teaches certain structural characteristics of fibers and yarn, Suk does not disclose the use of that yarn in the specific structural context of a multi-layer membrane with deflector fins, such as that described in Sighinolfi. There is no disclosure in Sighinolfi nor Suk that suggests such a yarn would be successful when applied to the membrane of Sighinolfi. Without any expectation of success, such a proposed modification is not prima facie obvious.
More particularly, the Office does not acknowledge the synergistic advantages of combining the following characteristics into a single membrane: the ability to produce a "coarse" or "heavy" mesh (high inertia, high thermal insulation) while maintaining a desired high permeability, which improves flame stability and reduces noise.
This result (high inertia + high permeability), which is recited in amended claim 1, is not taught by the combination of Sighinolfi with Suk.
Rather, Suk's continuous and corrugated fiber yarns (although suggested to improve workability) in combination with an areal mass greater than 1.2kg/m2 (which Sighinolfi does not suggest for its diffuser layer) produces a considerably higher thermal inertia and better flow distribution than was known in the relevant technical field before the effective filing date of the present application. That is, the membrane including the yarns as disclosed and claimed in the present application provides a significant yet unexpected result of improved flame stability and reduced excessive noise/overheating.
Therefore, claim 1 is submitted to be patentable over Sighinolfi and Suk, as are the claims depending therefrom”
These arguments are not persuasive. Suk provides explicit motivation for modifying the existing fabric or mesh of the combustion membrane taught by Sighinolfi as is presented above in the rejection for Claim 1 - doing so would have improved “frictional force between metal fibers, entanglement and processability” (as is presented above in the rejection for Claim 1). Therefore, Applicant’s argument that “There is no disclosure in Sighinolfi nor Suk that suggests such a yarn would be successful when applied to the membrane of Sighinolfi” is neither founded nor persuasive given the lack of any factual evidence provided by Applicant and the explicit motivation provided by Suk. Moreover, citing alleged “synergistic advantages” has no bearing on the obvious combination of Sighinolfi and Suk and the explicit motivation for modifying Sighinolfi based on the teachings of Suk that would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed (as is presented above in the rejection for Claim 1). Thus, the combination of Sighinolfi and Suk meets each and every limitation of Claim 1 as claimed and the arguments concerning the same are not persuasive.
Applicant also contends that:
“Applicant respectfully submits claims 13 and 14 are further patentable over the cited references.
Specifically, the Office suggests that the claimed range may be discovered by routine experimentation.
Applicant respectfully traverses this conclusion. Specifically, the result obtained in the claimed range is unexpected, based on the conventional knowledge before the effective filing date of the present application, as demonstrated by the combination of the functions of Sighinolfi and Suk.
The unexpected result, tied to the claimed range, is the synergistic combined effect of heavy fabric (greater thermal inertia, more uniform temperature distribution, more uniform flame behavior) and greater permeability (less obstructions to gas flow, reduced risk of flame flash back, greater flame stability, less noise) and greater heat isolation (reduced risk of local overheating of the burner membrane).
Accordingly, the claimed range provides unexpected results, and claims 13 and 14 are further patentable over the cited references.”
This argument is not persuasive. As is presented above in this Office Action, given In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation). In the instant case, it has been demonstrated (for each of Claim 13-14) that the general conditions the claim are disclosed in the prior art, and that the variable in question is a result effective variable that would have been readily changeable in the combined apparatus. Accordingly, given the holdings of In re Aller, “it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation” and, as is presented above in this Office Action, doing so would have necessarily resulted in the inventions of each of Claims 13-14 as claimed. Applicant’s arguments fail to demonstrate that the general conditions of the claim are not disclosed in the prior art and/or that the optimum or workable ranges of the combined apparatus could not have been achieved by routine experimentation. Thus, given the findings by the Examiner (as are presented above in this Office Action) that the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art and that the optimum or workable ranges of the combined apparatus could have been achieved by routine experimentation, these arguments are not persuasive. Note that, regardless of an alleged “synergistic combined effect”, the combined apparatus in each of Claims 13-14 would have comprised all of the structure as claimed and would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed in each of Claims 13-14.
Applicant also contends that:
“Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C.§ 103 as allegedly unpatentable over
Sighinolfi in view of Suk and Tversoki (U.S. 2008/0230522).
Claim 12 depends from claim 1, which is patentable over Sighinolfi and Suk as set forth above. Tversoki does not remedy the deficiencies of Sighinolfi and Suk with respect to the recitations of claim 1, and, therefore, claim 1 is patentable over Sighinolfi, Suk, and Tversoki. Claim 12 is patentable over the cited references at least for its dependence from claim 1.
Moreover, claim 12 is further patentable over the cited references for the additional recitations thereof.
In particular, Tversoki describes a plasma/arc burner with an insert element (43) for heat emission. The subject matter and context of Tversoki are totally different from that of Sighinolfi and/or Suk, namely, a premixed membrane gas burner, where Hafnium is not typically used or suggested as a dopant for metal fibers.
There is no motivation for a person experienced in the field of membrane burners (Sighinolfi/Suk) to modify their doped alloy for the entirely specific and unrelated improvements discussed in Tversoki (which apply to a plasma burner, which is a completely different technical field). Therefore, claim 12 is further patentable over the cited references.”
This argument is not persuasive. Applicant contends, without providing any factual evidence, that “There is no motivation for a person experienced in the field of membrane burners (Sighinolfi/Suk) to modify their doped alloy for the entirely specific and unrelated improvements discussed in Tversoki” while neglecting the explicit motivation provided by Tversoki and cited by the Examiner. As is presented above in this Office Action, “it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified the combined apparatus by configuring the existing doping material of the existing metal wires to also include hafnium based on the teachings of Tversoki. Doing so would have, at least, enhanced the heat-emissive ability of the existing metal wires”. Therefore, such modification would have been obvious and the arguments concerning the same are not persuasive.
Applicant also contends that:
“Claim 16 depends from claim 1, which is patentable over Sighinolfi and Suk as set forth above. Dawaegheneire does not remedy the deficiencies of Sighinolfi and Suk with respect to the recitations of claim 1, and, therefore, claim 1 is patentable over Sighinolfi, Suk, and Dawaegheneire. Claim 16 is patentable over the cited references at least for its dependence from claim 1.
Moreover, claim 16 is further patentable over the cited references for the additional recitations thereof. In particular, Dewaegheneire focuses on improving overall textile workability, but does not address Sighinolfi/Suk's specific deficiency of maintaining continuous, untwisted fiber yarn geometry for burners after binder removal.
However, applying the soluble binder/thread in Dewaegheneire in combination with the specific structure of the Suk yarn would likely result in, after removal, a bulged and coarse structure that would otherwise collapse if woven only with untwisted yarns. Therefore, claim 16 is further patentable over the cited references.”
This argument is not persuasive. Applicant contention is not supported by any factual evidence and neglects the explicit motivation provided by Dewaegheneire and cited by the Examiner. As is presented above in this Office Action, “it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified the combined apparatus by configuring the existing metal wires to be at least or only initially bound by a binder in the form of a bonding thread during manufacturing and before use as is taught by Dewaegheneire. Doing so would have enabled higher speed during weaving or knitting to be applied during manufacturing.”. Therefore, such modification would have been obvious and the arguments concerning the same are not persuasive.
It is recommended that Applicant further amend the claims to include additional structural elements and/or features to endeavor to overcome the prior art of record. Such structural elements and/or features could relate to, for example, what is shown in Fig. 5 of the instant application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following prior art is considered relevant to this application in terms of structure and use:
Hsu (US 2009/0011270 A1)
Tucker, Jr. et al. (US 2004/0097148 A1)
Quick et al. (US 2002/0029453 A1)
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN W JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8523. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:30-5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at 571-272-9059. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BENJAMIN W JOHNSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 4/24/2026
/HELENA KOSANOVIC/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights